Age suffixes may appear: "a" for adult,
"i" for immature, or "p" for "phi" (female/immature).

Sex suffixes are "m", "f", and
"p" (for phi).

Count-week records bear a "+" suffix.

Questionable records are flagged with a "q" suffix.

For each discrepancy between the published accounts and
the database as entered, there is a small table with four elements:

At the top of the column labeled Context is the
last correct record that precedes the error. (This is omitted if the
error starts the circle's report.)

Incorrect records, if any, are in the column labeled
Wrong.

Records in the Right column, if any, should
replace records in the Wrong column, if any.

At the bottom of the Context column are
one or more correct records that follow the error. (This is
omitted if the error occurs at the end of the circle.)

Here's a small example:

#079-0587 AL: Birmingham

Wrong

Context

Right

Hairy Woodpecker 4

Downy Woodpecker 7

Downy Woodpecker 68

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 7

Eastern Phoebe 3

This example shows count #587 from the 79th CBC. Just after
the record "Hairy Woodpecker 4", the data entry operator's
eye mistracked and entered "Downy Woodpecker 7", then got
back on track with "Eastern Phoebe 3". But in place of
that one Downy Woodpecker record there should be two records,
"Downy Woodpecker 68; Red-cockaded Woodpecker 7".

The context records are given so you can be sure you're
working on the correct circle. If you don't find the
"Hairy Woodpecker 4" record, this probably isn't the right
circle.

Audubon's database and duplicate records

When Audubon's original database was loaded from Shipman's
version in the late 1990s, any duplicate codes within a circle
were kicked out. So if Shipman's database had two records for
the same species in a circle, neither will appear, whether
their numbers agreed or not.

This means that when the data entry operator's eye looped back
and re-entered one or more records in a circle, neither of
the records for a given form will appear in the Audubon database.

The way these particular errors are notated in the reports
is slightly different. Here's an example:

#080-0460 SC: Columbia

Wrong

Context

Right

Merlin 5

American Kestrel 32

Northern Bobwhite 21

American Coot 5

American Kestrel 32

Northern Bobwhite 21

American Coot 20

Killdeer 42

Record "merlin5" is correct, but the next three
records are duplicates. The third one, "amecoo5", has
the wrong count (the 5 from Merlin) because the operator's eye
mistracked. The next three records are correct, and then the
entry gets back on track with the "killde42" record.

If you go to the Audubon database and look this circle up
(it is count code "SC0C", not "SCCO"), you will find the "Merlin
5" and the "Killdeer 42", but no records at all for American
Kestrel, Northern Bobwhite, or American Coot, because those
were duplicated in Shipman's database.

So, whenever there is more than one record in the bottom of
the Context column, all but the last record must be added
to the Audubon database.

Audubon's database and "minus one" records

In Audubon's database, records from Shipman's database with a
count of -1 (minus one, meaning count unknown) will show up with
a count of zero. This generally occurs with count-week records,
but there are some records like this from count day. There
aren't many of these, maybe a few hundred in the whole database.

Status of Audubon's corrections

At this writing, here is the status of Audubon's database
with regard to Shipman's proofreading project.

CBCs #1 through #62 have been sent to Audubon but
not made in their database.

Data for CBCs #63 through #72 came from the Bock project
at the University of Colorado. Because all counts of
individuals were rounded to only two significant digits,
comparing totals of individuals to the database will not
yield any useful reduction in the number of circles that
must be proofread.

CBCs #73 through #85 have been sent to Audubon but
not made in their database.

CBCs #86 through #90 have been sent to Audubon and
corrected in their database.

CBCs #91 through #98 were converted directly from
data supplied by the publishing operation; there should
be no significant discrepancies.